Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Urmila Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Jai Bhagwan - Respondent
CS(OS) 306 of 2019
Decided On : 22-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property partition suit details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's legal arguments against defendants. (Para 4) |
| 3. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of factual assertions and defenses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. findings on oral partition and its legal standing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. legal basis for granting a preliminary decree. (Para 13) |
| 7. conclusion and referral for mediation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
I.A. 14704/2019 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for decree of possession)
1. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking partition of the estate of her father Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Kaushik being:
a) Property bearing Khasra No. 204, measuring approximately 352 sq. yards, Main Market Kondali, Delhi-110096,
b) Property bearing Khasra No. 186-187, measuring approximately 1100-1200 sq. yards Village Kondali, Delhi-110096 (together referred to as the "suit properties")
2. The case of the Plaintiff is that her father died intestate and is survived by Class 1 legal heirs being his sons and daughters, who are parties to the present suit. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 referred to as "Contesting Defendants" are contesting the suit and whereas Defendant No. 6 supports the Plaintiff's prayer for partition.
3. By way of the instant application, Plaintiff seeks judgment on admission on the basis of averments made in the written statement filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5.
Plaintiff's contentions
4. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, counsel for the Plaintiff makes the following submissions:
4.1. The averments made in the written statement filed by the Contesting Defendants when juxtaposed with the averments made in the plaint, clearly bring out the admissions as is evident from the following tabulation:
"Preliminary submissions in Written Statement
Para 2 page 2
.....Plaintiff had already got her share in the property as per her share value and this amount was received by the plaintiff in front of her father namely Late Sh. Ramesh Chand Kaushik and all defendants.
Para 4 page 2
....after the death of father of the parties, defendant no.1 and 2 was looking after the said property in all manner till now but the in the presence of the father of the parties, and on the request of the plaintiff, a orally agreement was executed between the parties thereby plaintiff got her share as per her share in presence of all defendant and their father. And it is also decided mutually between the parties in question that the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 will not have any concerned with the aforesaid suit properties in future. It is submitted that only Defendant No. 1 and 2 had care their father in his bad times and none other and plaintiff came forward to look-after him.
Para Wise Reply to the Plaint
| Plaint | Written Statement |
| Para 2, page 13 The Defendant No. 1 and 2 are the brothers of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 3 to 6 are the sisters of the Plaintiff. Parties are the only Class I legal heirs of Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Kaushik | Page 4 Matter of records and need no reply |
| Para 3, page 13 That Late Mr. Hari Chandra grandfather of the inherited Parties several properties from the great grandfather of the Parties in the year 1954 1955 included The said properties Property bearing Khasra No. 204, Main Market Kondali, Delhi-110096, Property bearing Ward No: 57 Village Kondali and Property bearing Khas No 186-187, Village Kondali. Delhi-110096. | Para 3, Page 4 That the contents of Para No. 3 of the plaint as stated are wrong and denied. It is also denied that only the grandfather of the parties in question inherited properties in question from the great grandfather of the parties in the suit in the year 1954-1955 and father of the not the parties inherited any property from grandfather. It is submitted that the properties in question are the acquired properties self of Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Kaushik. |
| Para 12, page 18 That Late Mr. Ramesh Chandra Kaushik died intestate and trusted the Defendant No. 1 and 2 to divide the Suit Properties |
The court determined that an oral partition can establish ownership of joint family property without formal documentation, being legitimate under Hindu law. Plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery b....
The court ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
Oral partition must be substantiated with evidence; mere allegations without proof do not suffice to alter joint family property status.
The absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
The court affirmed the joint family status and the trial court's ruling on partition, rejecting claims of prior oral partition due to insufficient evidence.
The court can pass a decree without trial when there are no disputed questions of fact and the lis can be decided on the undisputed facts.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove oral partition in property disputes and the implications of relying on the defendant's statement. The burden of proof l....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
